Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer Writes "They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.

Burdens of Proof: The PRO needs to prove that as a general Rule Euthanasia is Morally Permissible. The CON needs to Prove that as a General Rule euthanasia is not Morally permissible. This is the Most Basic Burden, and puts PRO and CON on a level playing field and is thus the Most Fair.

1.
-If a Person wants to Die he should be able to die painlessly. John Stewart Mill writes "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" Euthanasia does not harm anyone but the person who has consented. So why is it immoral to die? If you are suffering why should it be considered Immoral for you to end that suffering. To Use a Commonly used Metaphor, Imagine your life is a dream, but it has turned into a nightmare, so the next step would be to end that nightmare. That Is Euthanasia. We may speculate that Euthanasia is Immoral because we shouldn't kill but none of us here have been in a situation in which they are suffering greatly and will inevitable die in the near future. Greek Philosopher Herodotus writes: "When life is so burdensome, death has become for man a sought-after refuge" We cannot morally deny someone the right to govern their own body. It is paramount to the unwritten Moral code that an Individual to have power over ones self. Otherwise we would be denying their rights to freedom, Liberty, Autonomy.... it is not immoral to want to eliminate suffering, so why would Euthanasia be Immoral? this Contradicts our own Moral rules. Philosopher Leonard Peikoff writes "In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: "Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute."

Conclusion: we have a Moral duty to reduce Human Suffering so why would Euthanasia be immoral? It would not. Euthanasia is merely a Painless way to end ones suffering, and not to prolong the inevitable when life has become a living hell.

Euthanasia is one of the most contested topics in all ethics. Euthanasia is, as defined by Merriam Webster: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.

So basically, euthanasia is, in layman's terms, the killing of a hopelessly sick or injured person or animal in a painless(so we believe) way because we want to be merciful.

Burdens: So if I am successful in proving that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moral, then I win the debate. If I show that it is wrong in even just one instance, I win, since I have shown that euthanasia in a medical setting is not moraly. My opponent or opponents must show how euthanasia is always moral, since not doing so would be like admitting that euthanasia might not be moral, in which case I win.

To my points:
1. Euthanasia is killing, no matter how you make it sound. Killing is always bad. We might kill because we might think we have to, but that doesn't make it right. Because killing is always immoral, euthanasia is always immoral. How do we know killing is immoral? We know killing is immoral because: a. We feel it is. Our feelings and conciensce are guides to morality. If we were to ask ourself why something is wrong, most of us would say, 'Because it feels wrong.' This of course, is assuming you don't know any moral theories to explain it. b. We are given no right to do so. If you cannot justify killing in any sense. c. Justifying killing would lead us on a path to destruction because we would be able to justify all sorts of other atrocities, due to the fact that we might think we are helping the victim.This argument is an argument that applies to all parts of this debate. However, later in this speech, I will be branching the debate into more specific areas.

a. With consent. Euthanasia is still not moral, because we are killing. Look above for justification.
b. Without consent. Euthanasia is especially not moral, because nothing has given the killer permission to do the act. Just because he/she believes he is acting out of mercy, the victim might desire.
The problem with saying euthanasia is not killing is because that opens the door to a whole host of problems. If euthanasia is not killing, then what is it? The peaceful taking of ones life, sometimes without the victim's consent?
The legalization of euthanasia undermines the impetus to develop truly compassionate approaches to the care of the suffering and the dying The proper expression of compassion is care motivated by a more or less strong sense of sympathy with the affliction of the person suffering. But one cannot care for people by killing them. It is very important to bear in mind that a key element in the context of contemporary debates about legalizing euthanasia is the drive to reduce health care costs. One of the conspicuous dangers of legalization is that, before long, euthanasia would be seen as a convenient 'solution' to the heavy demands on care made by certain types of patient. Medicine would thereby be robbed of the incentive to find genuinely compassionate solutions to the difficulties presented by such patients. The kind of humane impulses which have sustained the development of hospice medicine and care would be undermined because too many would think euthanasia a cheaper and less personally demanding solution says Luke Gormally in 1997.
Let the following quotation from the House of Lords' Select Committee Report stand as the epitome of the collective wisdom of these Committees:
'[S]ociety's prohibition of intentional killing ...is the cornerstone of law and social relationships. It protects each of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia ...The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole.'
It is the hope of the present writer that the members of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee will, after due consideration, associate themselves with the moral and political wisdom exhibited in this statement.

In Conclusion: The fact that euthanasia is killing, and killing immoral, so euthanasia is immoral..The exiting of life from one body, aided by the medicine of another is indeed immoral thats why it's immoral.

I am Not quite sure about my opponents burden.... I presented a Burden in the first round that Con didn't address.... Also My burden is more fair as it gives both Pro and Con equal ground whilst my opponents Burden tilts the scale in favor of Con so that it is almost impossible for pro to argue. Under My Burden we each have to prove our point as a General rule, under the con burden she can instantly fulfill by creating a hypothetical scenario. Obviously my Burden is better and more fair to the debate.

Lets also look at the definition of Euthanasia, as my opponent definition suggests Euthanasia implies a painless killing, so for the purpose of evaluating morality we must assume that Euthanasia is A) Painless and B) is in fact done for reasons of mercy and C) the person will die in the Near Future.

CON Arguments then PRO Arguments

1. My opponent essentially makes the claim that killing is wrong because we say it is. I have to say this is an oversimplification, obviously some people don't think it is wrong. Also how do we react naturally when we talk of Euthanasia. By my opponents Logic, whenever someone is killed in an accident, a War, or even by personal choice; the action that led up to it is inherently Immoral. My opponent fails to understand the Massive Logical Fallacy of this contention. Euthanasia does not Justify killing in general, it has to fall under the specific generation. If I broke into a house and shot someone because they were fat, it would not be Euthanasia, because A) they have no Terminal Injury or Illness by which they will soon die, B) it was been ordained and proven that physical Harm via shooting or stabbing is painful. Euthanasia would justify only one thing, Euthanasia. This Whole point is a Logical Fallacy and thus should be discounted.

a. My opponent makes a claim that essentially a person has no moral control over his/her body. if we were to continue her train of logic... If I asked someone if they wanted Personal Autonomy, they would say yes. Euthanasia is respecting this personal Autonomy. If hurts no-one and is thus not a burden to society either.

b. The first argument my opponent makes is that Euthanasia is killing because it takes life. However this argument is based purely on which words are used. Killing bears a Negative connotation. If I were to ask a person if they wanted their money taken for societies use and whether they supported taxes I would very probably receive two different answers.
As my opponent frames this debate "Euthanasia is Moral in a Medical Setting. In a Medical setting express consent must be given OR the person must not have the functioning Brain power to make a decision. If this happens it is the decision of close relatives. It is not as if anyone can commit Euthanasia... in 999/1000 cases consent will be required the exception is essentially when the patient is a Vegetable. If it escalates as my opponent argues, it will cease to become euthanasia and therefore outside the parameters of the debate. We must respect personal Autonomy, taking this freedom for societies use is Immoral I address this is my case.

PRO
All my arguments stand un-attacked so please extend them through the round.

Conclusion: Euthanasia is a very specific Term, much of con's arguments would create a situation where the action is not euthanasia as she defines it. Her Arguments regarding killing are fallacious. In order to protect personal Autonomy I urge Affirmation